Well, I guess it's us

[MachineGhost]

Not at all.  It's the skeptics who challenge climate scientists based on the idea that you have to know/predict everything incredibly precisely, or else it's not valid/useful.

Seems like a strawman argument to me.

It's not so much precisely as opposed to having flawed models that are ideologically-biased and then reality observation has a nasty habit of disconfirming the model.  Do they then adjust it and invalidate their AGW premise?  That's the $64K question.

A quick search finds that author thinks overpopulation isn't a real thing/problem - surely you don't agree with that?  It was the first item listed in the Wikipedia article.

Similar to AGW, it all depends on how you define "overpopulation".  We have more than enough land for everyone, but everyone persists in flocking to and living in overcongested metro-urban shitholes.  So of course there is an "overpopulation" problem on relative terms.  Capitalism is the greatest birth control solution ever invented, so hurry up Africa, India and China!!!

Basically, it all comes down to what you want to believe...  objective facts about the state of the world or doom porn propaganda.  Recognize for what it is and act accordingly.

[Pointedstick]

As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that I'm right, and am saddened that we aren't figuring out how to live on the planet without being a very destructive element.

Ain't nuthin' new about that, I'm afraid.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/endan ... 140724.htm

[MachineGhost]

http://news.discovery.com/animals/endan ... 140724.htm

Sad, but that reeks of doom porn.  Human population growth isn't (and hasn't) going to "continue unchecked".   Extrapolating as if it was is a dishonest fallacy on the same level of the alleged "feedback acceleration" mechanism behind AGW fear-mongering.

Damn, when did I ever become such a cynic?

[MachineGhost]

We're already seeing negative effects which are disturbing - increases in the intensity of hurricanes come to mind immediately.

That seems like another common fallacy, so what does AGW have to do with increases in the intensity of hurricanes?  And how do you tell the chicken from the egg?  Without all the AGW fear-mongernig, would there be as much attention and reporting paid to inclement weather?  It's like autism...  the incidence has "skyrocketed" but a large part may be only because of better detection and monitoring, nothing fundamental.  So what proof (rather than conjecture) that is AGW causing inclement weather above average?

[rickb]

Because I thought you were referring the to other site that rickb quoted from.  I'm too bored to read up on the whole pro argument again.

I was simply quoting the site jafs referred you to.

I haven't looked at the raw data myself (I'm not a climatologist), but my understanding is that it's pretty much universally agreed by those in the field that CO2 levels are increasing because of human activity and that this is causing global warming.

The deniers strike me as the same sorts of folks who refuse to be believe cigarettes are harmful (restricting cigarette advertising being another goddamn government intrusion on big business!).  The exact same sorts of forces seem to be at work and I think we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly:

1) science figures out X (e.g. tobacco causes cancer, burning coal causes acid rain, lead paint is dangerous, etc etc etc)
2) X implies we should do something that is harmful to some big business interest
3) the big business interest loudly claims the science is horseshit (while privately doing their own studies that confirm X)
4) the big business interest manages to get a significant segment of the population to believe the science is horseshit

For some instances of this pattern I don't care that much.  For example, if you want to smoke cigarettes go for it (on the other hand, I don't think any health insurance including Medicare and Medicaid, should pay anything other than palliative care for smokers who end up with emphysema or lung cancer) .  However, when the consequence is not limited to the deniers then I do care.

Are there warming and cooling cycles not caused by humans?  Absolutely.

Does this mean humans cannot cause a warming cycle?  Absolutely not.

Are humans currently causing a warming cycle?  My understanding is the science pretty clearly says yes - see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Pointedstick]

I'm pretty much where you are on this, rickb.

Thing is, AGW doesn't even have to be true for reducing fossil fuel use to be a good thing. Extracting, processing, and burning fossil fuels also result a variety of other harmful side effects that are not in dispute by anyone: things like smog, asthma, acid rain, and spills into waterways. That'e not even wading into the fracking debate. Also, it's now understood that high CO2 concentration impairs mental functioning. Even if all that CO2 isn't increasing the temperature, it wouldn't hurt to cut that back a bit if only to prevent all of humanity from becoming stupider.

just for contrarian sake..... why oil, coal, and gas are the most environmentally sound fuel source.... http://conservativevideos.com/why-fossil-fuels-are-the-greenest-energy/

[MachineGhost]

I was simply quoting the site jafs referred you to.

Whoops, well, it was midnight or thereabouts, so wasn't thinking too clearly.

Are there warming and cooling cycles not caused by humans?  Absolutely.

Does this mean humans cannot cause a warming cycle?  Absolutely not.

Are humans currently causing a warming cycle?  My understanding is the science pretty clearly says yes - see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I agree with all of the above except I don't believe the science is persuasive that humans are causing the current warming cycle, considering it started about 800 years ago.  Occam's Razor is going to win out over any complex global weather forecasting algorithm in my book, no matter how much AGW True Believers mob into a frenzy to try and prove otherwise within a ridiculously narrow 1860-2016 only context.  Plus, once you factor in all of the cronyism and politics, that itself becomes a confounding variable as well.  In my experience, real world vanguard problems are not politicalized by the orthodoxy...  they're ignored, dimissed, ridiculed, prosecuted and imprisoned which is all part of the long, sad process a new concept has to go through on the way to becoming self-evident and accepted by all.  AGW True Believers were the orthodoxy from the outset ever since Tricky Dick setup the EPA.  First Global Cooling!  Then Overpopulation!  Next the Ozone Hole!  Now Global Warming!  There's no difference between AGW True Believers and Ancel Key's Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease propaganda.  Same shit, different year.

[MachineGhost]

Even if all that CO2 isn't increasing the temperature, it wouldn't hurt to cut that back a bit if only to prevent all of humanity from becoming stupider.

Oh, boy!  Oh, boy!  I do believe I can sink my teeth into that one!

Ok, I'm now officially against CO2.  If it just happenes to deal with the AGW bogeyman while I'm at it, all the better. 

Then again, like MangoMan, I do rather like my position on the throne...  who needs competition?  j/k

[rickb]

The image on the top is atmospheric CO2 concentration going back 400,000 years.  The image on the bottom is the EPICA core data.  I've tried to arrange it so these line up.  The text in the image on the top says "For 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line ... until now".


                             [img width=280]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ce_CO2.jpg[/img]

[img width=600]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_plot.svg[/img]

If the swings in the average temperature and in the atmospheric CO2 level continue the correlation observed for the last 400,000 years, it would seem that we're going to be in for some pretty hot times.

Of course, we may not.  For example there was a VEI 8 supervolcano eruption 340,000 years ago, at which point the EPICA data shows the temperature precipitously dropping.  OTOH, I'd imagine a VEI 8 supervolcano eruption would not be very pleasant either.

[jafs]

We're already seeing negative effects which are disturbing - increases in the intensity of hurricanes come to mind immediately.

That seems like another common fallacy, so what does AGW have to do with increases in the intensity of hurricanes?  And how do you tell the chicken from the egg?  Without all the AGW fear-mongernig, would there be as much attention and reporting paid to inclement weather?  It's like autism...  the incidence has "skyrocketed" but a large part may be only because of better detection and monitoring, nothing fundamental.  So what proof (rather than conjecture) that is AGW causing inclement weather above average?

It's one of the predictions, and we're seeing evidence that it's happening.

Right now, not some time in the future.

But I'm going to stop - it's clear that you have your view, and I have mine, and neither one of us is likely to change.

I've looked into it enough to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this is an issue, and we should do something about it.  That's a high enough standard for me.

I'm surprised by your comments about overpopulation - I think it's also very clear that there are far too many people on the planet for it to support in any sort of sustainable way.  Wasn't that one of the points of "Overshoot"?  I seem to recall you being very passionate about that.

[Mark Leavy]

I don't understand the debate about whether AGW is real or not.

It doesn't matter one iota.

There is not a single predictive model that works.
There is no therapeutic remedy that could be implemented in today's world.

Nobody that does math believes that carbon credits and recycling grocery bags will ever have a measurable impact on climate.

I have zero interest in symbolic gestures.  Sure - have all of the opinions you want as to what is "Truth", but if none of your beliefs can translate into actionable differences in the real world, why lose any sleep over them?

I don't vote and I don't worry about the next bubonic plague.  For exactly the same reasons.

[Tyler]

Personally, I acknowledge that many of the concepts behind anthropogenic global warming are based in good science.  However, I reject the obviously hyperbolic doomsday predictions, notice that most of the proposed solutions are pure opportunistic bullshit, and understand that every course of action has tradeoffs and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  When proponents start pushing nuclear energy and true individual conservation instead of massive carbon taxes and global wealth redistribution, I'll start taking them more seriously.  Buying carbon credits to pay third-world countries to stay poor so that you can fly on your private jet to the next climate conference in Rio with a clean conscience is patently laughable in its pious and narcissistic tunnel-vision.  It's neither scientific nor in the best interest of humanity. 

Frankly, I find the entire modern debate disheartening for environmentalism as a whole.  It's not, however, because some people refuse to submit, but because environmentalists have abandoned their roots and gone all-in on an unwinnable war for ideological purity while championing hollow feel-good gestures rather than working for measurable results.  When I was growing up in a very conservative city, everyone across the political spectrum agreed to some extent that issues like pollution, deforestation, and wildlife extinction were all legitimate problems that we should and could come together to fix.  At some point environmentalists abandoned that common ground to exclusively beat the drum for global warming and demonize all who question them as either stupid or evil.  And somehow buying a Tesla made from rare earth metals strip-mined in China has replaced a home vegetable garden as an Earth Day status symbol.  IMHO classic environmentalism has been irreparably harmed in the process, and by diverting countless resources away from other efforts that can improve the environment and save lives today they have sadly also harmed the planet they claim to be trying to protect.

[MachineGhost]

[quote=rickb]The image on the top is atmospheric CO2 concentration going back 400,000 years.  The image on the bottom is the EPICA core data.  I've tried to arrange it so these line up.  The text in the image on the top says "For 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line ... until now".
[/quote]

Ah, the infamous Hockey Stick chart.  All you have to do is eliminate the data you don't like to support your ideological bias.  Such as removing the Medieval Warmth Period.  Remember, kiddies, GIGO (that's Garbage In, Garbage Out).

[img width=800]http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/ ... charts.jpg[/img]

So logically if CO2 concentration is the "highest its ever been" as face value claimed in the Hockey Stick chart and it follows that CO2 growth correlates with rising temperatures (instead of the other way around with hundreds of years lag time), shouldn't we already be breaking the ice core records like there is no tomorrow?!!

[MachineGhost]

I'm surprised by your comments about overpopulation - I think it's also very clear that there are far too many people on the planet for it to support in any sort of sustainable way.  Wasn't that one of the points of "Overshoot"?  I seem to recall you being very passionate about that.

I think you have me mistaken for someone else, probably dualstow.  I don't know what "Overshoot" is.  But it sounds like another doom porn "documentary" where context and facts are left out of a debate to promote a specific agenda (i.e. Michael "Landfill" Moore's entertaining tripe).

[Mark Leavy]

...
Frankly, I find the entire modern debate disheartening for environmentalism as a whole.  It's not, however, because some people refuse to submit, but because environmentalists have abandoned their roots and gone all-in on an unwinnable war for ideological purity while championing hollow feel-good gestures rather than working for measurable results.
...

Very nice post Tyler.  I liked every bit of it.  I wish I had your ability to combine clear thinking with a command of prose.

[MachineGhost]

I don't understand the debate about whether AGW is real or not.

Because if its human-caused, it implies deflationary taxes and behavioral changes being forced upon us by the political class.  How well did that work out with absolute bullshit of security theatre with the TSA?  So, the ultimate question is whether the costs of that coercion is going to be higher than a measly 2F increase in temperature.  Beyond that, its all academic.  Personally, I'm looking forward to the global warming so I can profit from the unlocking of natural resources in frozen northern Canada.  It'll be like the 1860 "gold rush" all over again!  You don't usually get an opportunitty to strike the proverbial gold or oil twice.

So at the end of the day, to settle this whole debate, when someone actually proves the HYPOTHESIS that our current global warming cycle is majorly and directly caused by humans emitting CO2, it'll be over and everyone will gladly kowtow.  Not holding my breath, but miracles do happen.

[rickb]

I don't understand the debate about whether AGW is real or not.

It doesn't matter one iota.

There is not a single predictive model that works.
There is no therapeutic remedy that could be implemented in today's world.

There are plenty of global catastrophic risks that we really can't do anything about.  It sounds like you're saying global warming is one of them.

In the fullness of time, the earth is certainly fucked (the Sun will supernova eventually).  If we want to survive as a species we need to eventually figure out how to populate another solar system.

However, not even trying to do anything about things we can clearly see will be very, very bad seems a tad defeatist. 

If we saw a large asteroid headed toward earth would you say "oh well, in the long term we're fucked anyway".  Or would you think we might want to try to do something about it?

All of us will eventually die.  But that's quite different from asserting that the species will inevitably die.

[MachineGhost]

However, not even trying to do anything about things we can clearly see will be very, very bad seems a tad defeatist. 

Do you "clearly see" the warming bump in 1990 and its disappearance in 2001?  So what are you going to do now that you realize the IPCC and its ilk manipulated the data to promote doom porn?  Will you make a stand for truth, justice and facts or give into the embracing comfort of groupthink where you won't ever be that whack-a-mole?

[Mark Leavy]

However, not even trying to do anything about things we can clearly see will be very, very bad seems a tad defeatist. 

I don't think of it so much as defeatist as realistic.

Spend a week in Jakarta.  Just one city in Indonesia.  You could give everyone in California a Prius and it wouldn't offset the pollution from one city block in Jakarta (OK maybe 2).

Now, look at the rest of Java.  And then add in Sumatra.  We're barely getting started.  Move over into India and China.

You could kill everyone in California and not make a dent.  This is what I mean when I say that there are no realistic solutions.  Are you really going to turn China and India into a glass parking lot?  If not, then you are fooling yourself into thinking that you are solving global warming.

Maybe we will all convert to distributed nuclear energy with hydrogen substations for transportation and energy density.  But I don't see anyone advocating that.

The real world is not the US.  It is a shitload of smoking scooters and coal fires and horrific exploitation topped with plenty of natural phenomena.

What really do you suggest?

[rickb]

Ah, the infamous Hockey Stick chart. 

Nope - it's a CO2 chart, not a temperature chart.  We'll see what the temperature chart looks like in a 1000 years (or, our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children will) - or perhaps they simply won't exist because in our hubris we cause an extinction event.

[MachineGhost]

Nope - it's a CO2 chart, not a temperature chart.

My bad.  But, correlation is not causation.

[rickb]

However, not even trying to do anything about things we can clearly see will be very, very bad seems a tad defeatist. 

I don't think of it so much as defeatist as realistic.

Spend a week in Jakarta.  Just one city in Indonesia.  You could give everyone in California a Prius and it wouldn't offset the pollution from one city block in Jakarta (OK maybe 2).

Now, look at the rest of Java.  And then add in Sumatra.  We're barely getting started.  Move over into India and China.

You could kill everyone in California and not make a dent.  This is what I mean when I say that there are no realistic solutions.  Are you really going to turn China and India into a glass parking lot?  If not, then you are fooling yourself into thinking that you are solving global warming.

Maybe we will all convert to distributed nuclear energy with hydrogen substations for transportation and energy density.  But I don't see anyone advocating that.

The real world is not the US.  It is a shitload of smoking scooters and coal fires and horrific exploitation topped with plenty of natural phenomena.

What really do you suggest?

Yup - I've spent enough time in China to completely understand what you're saying.

So, I think we agree an asteroid's coming.

Your response is we should give up?

I think you've mentioned you have at least one child.  Would you recommend he/she/they have children?

What you're saying is that eventually the shit will hit the fan and there's nothing we can do about it.  If this is true why would you want your offspring (or your offspring's offspring's offspring) to endure this?

Seems to me we need a 100,000 year plan to survive while we find another solar system - which necessarily means not fucking the earth up so much that no one can live here.

We might end up fucked anyway - the Fermi Paradox suggests we won't achieve interstellar colonization before we become extinct - but simply giving up (no matter how "realistic") seems kind of pathetic.

What I really suggest is spend every nickel we can afford on space exploration.

The end may not be nigh, but it's certainly coming unless we can find a way to get our asses off this planet.

Like any good mother, Mother Earth is making it clear we need to stop depending on her and get on with our lives.

Dinosaurs reigned for 200M years.  Seems like our reign will be considerably shorter.

[rickb]

Nope - it's a CO2 chart, not a temperature chart.

My bad.  But, correlation is not causation.

Indeed it's not.  But a correlation that seems to have stood up for 400,000 years might be something you want to pay attention to.

[Mountaineer]

It is so freeing, comforting and peaceful to know some will be redeemed; no worries about all the mess we have made.    I can't wait for that perfect new earth. 

... M

[Mountaineer]

Just don't try to control others and force them to conform to your personal concept of right or wrong - but, it is up to them to buy what you are selling, it is not for you to decide they must buy it.

... Mountaineer

It is so freeing, comforting and peaceful to know some will be redeemed; no worries about all the mess we have made.  I can't wait for that perfect new earth. 

... M

Do you even realize you do this? Constantly? And how hypocritical it is? 

Everyone on here sells.  You do have the freedom to not buy, as do I.  From anyone.  You also have the freedom to complain.  The choice is yours.  Isn't this a great country, forum, venting area, non-tolerance board, or what?  Thanks be to God we are not all of the same mindset - how very boring that would be - Good Gracious Lord, we could all become progressive Democrats trying to control everything!  Peace bro, take a few deep breaths and purge all that excess CO2, but recognize it might contribute to global warming. 

... M